> > mark@unicorn.com wrote:> ----------> > > The things we talk about routinely on this list> > will be demonized and restricted just as much as guns if we let the control> > freaks have their way.> > Quite.> > >>2) Have you pro gun activists got any idea how completley mad you sound to> >>non Americans?> >> > Odd. I know plenty of non-Americans who are also pro-gun activists, or at> > least sympathisers; most of them are irate gun-owners disarmed by good old> > Tony Blair. Modern anti-gun Brits, of course, would have sounded completely> > mad a century ago when anyone could carry a gun -- and many did -- and the> > government's ideal was a rifle in every home to protect against invasion;> > a policy whose end would have proved fatal if Hitler had a clue about war.> > Ok, maybe that was a bit harsh, but it was more the dogmatic refusal to> accept there may be alternative view points I was alluding to> > >>but just because something is written in your> >>precious constitution or your bill of rights does not mean that it is the be> >>all and end all, that it is simply the only thought worth entertaining and> >>no alternatives shall be brooked.> >> > So the government employees who swore to uphold the Constitution are free> > to ignore it at will when they see fit?> > No, of course not....> > >>As such, situations have arisen> >>which the constitution was never designed to contend with and it has had to> >>be modified.> >> > Indeed. So all the anti-gun fanatics have to do is repeal the Second> > Amendment; the mechanism is quite clearly elaborated in the Constitution,> > they just have to do it. They refuse, and prefer just to ignore it...> >> > My point exactly.> > >>But excuse me if I am stepping on your> >>constitutionally protected toes here, I mean no harm, I'm just curious as> >> to> >>how you can rationalize this.> >> > I'm curious as to how anyone can rationalise ignoring the very law that the> > US government was created under whenever they see fit? You'd be happy if> > T.B. just declared himself dictator and refused to hold any more elections> > because the British 'constitution' is outdated?> > Again, no, of course not, but a system must be able to change as needs> arise, and the process of change must be open to reasoned debate. Clinging> to an outdated system and/or refusing to allow for the possibility of change> can only end up doing harm. If we can't or won't allow the systems under> which we must live to evolve, how can we hope to step up the evolutionary> ladder ourselves?>
Evolving is the LAST thing people of the radical right-wing ilk wish
either themselves or this great country to do.
>> >>As for the merit of this discussion on the list, is it something along the> >>lines of:> >>*I'm looking to the future, but I'll shoot you if you get in my way.> >> > Yeah, Joe is pretty fanatical about disarming us at gunpoint, isn't he? Why> > is it that the disarmers are so desperate to kill anyone who disagrees with> > them?> >> > Mark> >> >> > Craig Dibble.>